RealGM

The NBA does not monitor/approve player sponsorship deals and the players union wouldn’t want them to do that either. It’d be extremely difficult to negotiate it into a CBA, players would claim it’s not the league’s business…it’s theirs.

But…as we see there is a serious problem here. It’s to open for corruption. Sponsors can be to cozy with management and union members and can act as a bridge facilitating cap circumvention.

What if they split the baby? The NBA continues to monitor team sponsorships but the players union would agreed to monitor/approve all player sponsorships.

Rank and file players are not going to be ok with top guys getting extra off the books as pure circumvention and hurting their chances at winning legitimately. Guys won’t accept other guys getting paid under the table when they aren’t.

There’d be a process by which flagged deals get investigated and there be a point the league gets involved but day-to-day oversight is done by the union.

This way the league can claim clean hands.

The rules are set in the CBA and if the union gives a guy special treatment they take the blame and have to explain it to the other union members.

Have an independent third party monitor endorsement deals.

The NBA would only get involved if something against the rules occurs.

Kiss of Death wrote:Have an independent third party monitor endorsement deals.

The NBA would only get involved if something against the rules occurs.

Funny, this is actually my suggestion for officiating.

For player sponsorships there’s already a body that can provide oversight and it’s different in nature.

I think the major point is that there needs to be a clear separation between team and player sponsors and that there can´t be any direct involvement between companies the owner is involved with in any form and players.

That´s just common sense and why I see the Ballmer statement as complete BS. Even if there was really no actual direct involvement, it´s simply a bad look if a company does a sponsorship deal that also has the team´s owner as big investor. That´s just common sense and especially a former CEO of Microsoft will be aware of that.

Considering the amount paid to Kawhi by a company that is a "sustainability service" is nearly the same amount Nike, a company worth 110 billion dollars, is paying the 2nd greatest basketball player of all time per year for shoe sales that generate 340 million per year...

Should tell you this deal was never legit. It couldn't be legit. In what world is this not the most blatant circumventing of the cap?

the nba has no right to control what its players endorse

its none of its business,,,, if the players want to do embarrassing endorsements like frank thomas and doug flutie, let 'em

the nba would have to setup an unbrella edict based on "moral turpitude", which it prolly already has - an extension of "conduct detrimental". but good luck trying to sell that to the players

the players will prolly feel like the org is intruding on a god given freedom,,,,, and in today's player empowerment era?,,,, FORGET IT

bkkrh wrote:I think the major point is that there needs to be a clear separation between team and player sponsors and that there can´t be any direct involvement between companies the owner is involved with in any form and players.

That´s just common sense and why I see the Ballmer statement as complete BS. Even if there was really no actual direct involvement, it´s simply a bad look if a company does a sponsorship deal that also has the team´s owner as big investor. That´s just common sense and especially a former CEO of Microsoft will be aware of that.

Even if the Balmer wasnt a investor, they could still circunvint the salary cap. The player and the team can not make business with the same partner when the value of the business is very significative and arbitrary/fluid because it could be a way to give extra money to the player.

Otherwise. the team can give a 50 M discount in the sponsorship deal and demands the sponsor to give 50M directly to the player in a side bônus deal.

Or the team could pay 100 M for a 50M paint while the same art merchant can sell a 60M paint to the player for only 10M.

In these deals, the team admistrator, the player and the third party representant can make 2 separate deals but they can be in the same room signing both at the same time.

The best solution is enforcement and basically an amnesty process for players.

They are granted a reprieve if they come forward later. Relationships between players and teams constantly break down, let's face it. The owners would be forced to setup a system where literally all the risk is on them and the player could come forward at any time and walk away scott free.

Then you give a couple of teams the death penalty; even if a team thought they could get away with it, no team would dare try it.

The Servant wrote:Considering the amount paid to Kawhi by a company that is a "sustainability service" is nearly the same amount Nike, a company worth 110 billion dollars, is paying the 2nd greatest basketball player of all time per year for shoe sales that generate 340 million per year...

Should tell you this deal was never legit. It couldn't be legit. In what world is this not the most blatant circumventing of the cap?

I'm pretty sure it happens more often though. We've seen other players take paycuts "so that the team can compete". Similar to how the college extra incentives existed even before the NIL money.

It reminds me of Michael Porter Jr. kinda exposing himself when he said it's legit for a player to fake an injury mid game so that his friends can bet on his under and then cash out.

No one can ever prove that. But it's still cool that he admitted that that concept actually exists.

The problem is that the players union would absolutely be okay with off-the-book payments by rich owners, good even, and the not-so-rich owners wouldn't trust the union to monitor it.

What about requiring the Owners to be transparent about their investments?

Why do fans like this (SNPA) take the owner's (Billionaire's) side? This whole debacle was the owner's slip-up, not the players.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:What about requiring the Owners to be transparent about their investments?

Why do fans like this (SNPA) take the owner's (Billionaire's) side? This whole debacle was the owner's slip-up, not the players.

Both the person giving the bribe and receiving the bribe are at fault, especially when the person receiving the bribe is holding out his hand and coughing.

ReggiesKnicks wrote:What about requiring the Owners to be transparent about their investments?

Why do fans like this (SNPA) take the owner's (Billionaire's) side? This whole debacle was the owner's slip-up, not the players.

The NBA does look at team deals with sponsors.

And KL went around asking other teams for side deals before signing with the Clips. So while Ballmer is 100% responsible for his actions and the Clips it’s not as though he was with out a willing partner/instigator/co-conspirator in KL and UD.

Sixers in 4 wrote:The best solution is enforcement and basically an amnesty process for players.

They are granted a reprieve if they come forward later. Relationships between players and teams constantly break down, let's face it. The owners would be forced to setup a system where literally all the risk is on them and the player could come forward at any time and walk away scott free.

Then you give a couple of teams the death penalty; even if a team thought they could get away with it, no team would dare try it.

At first I liked it but then I thought a bit more…there are player-franchise relationships that run deep. If a player cheated the cap and got enough talent to win a ring and be a legend in that town he isn’t going to **** on that by ratting out an owner. This idea rewards good collusion.

The solution to aspiration: don't try.

SNPA wrote: Rank and file players are not going to be ok with top guys getting extra off the books as pure circumvention and hurting their chances at winning legitimately. Guys won’t accept other guys getting paid under the table when they aren’t.

Think this is totally wrong. Players who can't get these perks would be pretty petty to snitch on those that do, and it's not at their expense or anything either. Also think the NBA generally has a culture of respecting everyone going after their $ in whatever way they want to.

Inigo Montoya wrote:The solution to aspiration: don't try.

Negation. Torpor. Capitulation.

There are many options.

HotelVitale wrote:

SNPA wrote: Rank and file players are not going to be ok with top guys getting extra off the books as pure circumvention and hurting their chances at winning legitimately. Guys won’t accept other guys getting paid under the table when they aren’t.

Think this is totally wrong. Players who can't get these perks would be pretty petty to snitch on those that do, and it's not at their expense or anything either. Also think the NBA generally has a culture of respecting everyone going after their $ in whatever way they want to.

It's absolutely at their expense. Side deals that circumvent the CBA cost rank-and-file players in terms of the salary corresponding contributions to the pension fund. Union leadership and team representatives should be framing the discussion precisely in this way: these deals steal money from you.

SNPA wrote:

Sixers in 4 wrote:The best solution is enforcement and basically an amnesty process for players.

They are granted a reprieve if they come forward later. Relationships between players and teams constantly break down, let's face it. The owners would be forced to setup a system where literally all the risk is on them and the player could come forward at any time and walk away scott free.

Then you give a couple of teams the death penalty; even if a team thought they could get away with it, no team would dare try it.

At first I liked it but then I thought a bit more…there are player-franchise relationships that run deep. If a player cheated the cap and got enough talent to win a ring and be a legend in that town he isn’t going to **** on that by ratting out an owner. This idea rewards good collusion.

You don't need to catch every player; you just need one because the penalty for getting caught is a death sentence. Is it perfect? No, but it's the only way I see to prevent it from happening because the punishment is so severe that no one even tries.

The other thing is you also have players ratting out other players. You think X player on the team won't be jealous once he sees another player getting extra? The current system is problematic because the only way it becomes known is by pure happenstance. The NBA needs to start being proactive rather than reactive.

bkkrh wrote:I think the major point is that there needs to be a clear separation between team and player sponsors
...

Doubt that happens. The same companies that do deals with teams also do deals with players. You're saying that Nike could pick to work with NBA teams, but never with players (so no player shoes)? Or Adidas could do player deals, but then never any money exchanged with teams.

If Aspiration had used a bunch of Kawhi images to promote themselves or he makes some token appearance to some events, there is nothing unusual other than the huge dollar amount. Foot Locker officially sponsors the Bulls. Foot Locker has also hired Derrick Rose directly as an individual to promote their products.

If the Bulls org with their relationship with Foot Locker said "Hey we'd love for you to feature Rose in some commercials" is that cap circumvention? Because I'm sure that conversation happened. It helps the Bulls to get some nationally televised commercials spammed through all NBA games, it gets Derrick Rose a ton of money. Everyone wins.